Originally posted by AlexG:
Let us start with the assumption that the moon is made of green cheese.
Could the visible cratering we see be do to the action of mice?
My response:
I don't think that mice would coordinate their activities to create symmetrical craters. I think they would create craters possibly, but these would mostly random in form.
Maybe when the russians first landed on the moon
in the 60's, they're spacecraft was full of mice?
There is an article about this somewhere.
in the 60's, they're spacecraft was full of mice?
There is an article about this somewhere.
Right, and since it was probably an experiment about training animals to coordinate their activity in organized collective ways (in low gravity situations), they were trained to eat the cheese in a perfect convex pattern - to disguise their progress as appearing to be new craters formed by meteorites.
I guess all the Martian invasion movies are not the real threat, it's super-intelligent Soviet mice that have hyperpopulated the moon and are going to return to Earth in devastating numbers. Good thing all my cheese is yellow or white and not green, so I don't have to worry about being targeted!
I guess all the Martian invasion movies are not the real threat, it's super-intelligent Soviet mice that have hyperpopulated the moon and are going to return to Earth in devastating numbers. Good thing all my cheese is yellow or white and not green, so I don't have to worry about being targeted!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 07:02 PM)
Right, and since it was probably an experiment about training animals to coordinate their activity in organized collective ways (in low gravity situations), they were trained to eat the cheese in a perfect convex pattern - to disguise their progress as appearing to be new craters formed by meteorites.
I guess all the Martian invasion movies are not the real threat, it's super-intelligent Soviet mice that have hyperpopulated the moon and are going to return to Earth in devastating numbers. Good thing all my cheese is yellow or white and not green, so I don't have to worry about being targeted!
One of the goals of public education is to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking allows you to analyze ideas and determine their merit. You have apparently not mastered this skill, as you have no BS filter. A BS filter is the ability to distinguish legitimate ideas from complete and utter bullsh1t. By re-posting something that was intended as a joke, you have proven yourself to be either a troll or someone who has no ability to think critically.
I guess all the Martian invasion movies are not the real threat, it's super-intelligent Soviet mice that have hyperpopulated the moon and are going to return to Earth in devastating numbers. Good thing all my cheese is yellow or white and not green, so I don't have to worry about being targeted!
One of the goals of public education is to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking allows you to analyze ideas and determine their merit. You have apparently not mastered this skill, as you have no BS filter. A BS filter is the ability to distinguish legitimate ideas from complete and utter bullsh1t. By re-posting something that was intended as a joke, you have proven yourself to be either a troll or someone who has no ability to think critically.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 16 2009, 02:45 AM)
One of the goals of public education is to teach critical thinking. Critical thinking allows you to analyze ideas and determine their merit. You have apparently not mastered this skill, as you have no BS filter. A BS filter is the ability to distinguish legitimate ideas from complete and utter bullsh1t. By re-posting something that was intended as a joke, you have proven yourself to be either a troll or someone who has no ability to think critically.
When I read the post that I used to start this thread, I had the same feeling that you did. Why is this person posting BS as a sarcastic response to my post, implying that it was BS. I decided that I would repost it with the intention of showing that, whether meant sarcastically or not, the subject matter was a completely different issue than the one it was posted as a response to.
Therefore I started it as a new thread. Then since I was reposting it anyway I decided, just for fun, to add a legitimate response to a stupid proposition. I.e. mice eating cheese would not produce symmetrical concave craters as observed on the moon. The craters would be more disorganized. This turned a ridiculous proposition into a logically debatable proposition.
The point is that BS can be educative when explored using logic, reason, and empirical principles. Obviously there are other reasons why the moon would not likely be made of cheese, like for example that cheese does not occur naturally, except through the culturing of milk, which is produced by mammals on Earth. It's ridiculous for so many reasons, but it is better not to get into a negativity/sarcasm battle, such as the one Granouile (and many others) engage in to call each other's posts stupid. It's better to remain engaged in some form of positive/constructive discussion, even when you feel you're dealing with BS, because at least a constructive response will have some positive knowledge in it, whereas a negative/sarcastic response will only elevate tempers and discourage people from thinking constructively.
When I read the post that I used to start this thread, I had the same feeling that you did. Why is this person posting BS as a sarcastic response to my post, implying that it was BS. I decided that I would repost it with the intention of showing that, whether meant sarcastically or not, the subject matter was a completely different issue than the one it was posted as a response to.
Therefore I started it as a new thread. Then since I was reposting it anyway I decided, just for fun, to add a legitimate response to a stupid proposition. I.e. mice eating cheese would not produce symmetrical concave craters as observed on the moon. The craters would be more disorganized. This turned a ridiculous proposition into a logically debatable proposition.
The point is that BS can be educative when explored using logic, reason, and empirical principles. Obviously there are other reasons why the moon would not likely be made of cheese, like for example that cheese does not occur naturally, except through the culturing of milk, which is produced by mammals on Earth. It's ridiculous for so many reasons, but it is better not to get into a negativity/sarcasm battle, such as the one Granouile (and many others) engage in to call each other's posts stupid. It's better to remain engaged in some form of positive/constructive discussion, even when you feel you're dealing with BS, because at least a constructive response will have some positive knowledge in it, whereas a negative/sarcastic response will only elevate tempers and discourage people from thinking constructively.
QUOTE
The point is that BS can be educative when explored using logic, reason, and empirical principles.
That's the point of ~50% of the posts on this forum, in case you haven't noticed. The other ~50% is the drivel that necessitates it, in case you haven't noticed
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 16 2009, 01:52 PM)
Then since I was reposting it anyway I decided, just for fun, to add a legitimate response to a stupid proposition. I.e. mice eating cheese would not produce symmetrical concave craters as observed on the moon. The craters would be more disorganized. This turned a ridiculous proposition into a logically debatable proposition.
The point is that BS can be educative when explored using logic, reason, and empirical principles.
And yet, with it simplified to that form you still fail.
If we accept the assumption that the moon is made of cheese there is a fatal flaw in your silly assumption that craters weren't caused by mice. Of course the craters were caused by mice. A single colony of bacteria couldn't possibly create a single variety of cheese that large. It would have to be multiple varieties culturing varies varieties. Since bacteria grow in progressively sized sphere's (in an evenly prepared medium) then it can be just as easily assumed that the mice preferred the Gouda varieties and ate all of it up thus forming a void/crater which has spherical characteristics.
The point of the post which made you start this silliness is that the crap you have been spewing around here is equally ludicrous. Go away.
The point is that BS can be educative when explored using logic, reason, and empirical principles.
And yet, with it simplified to that form you still fail.
If we accept the assumption that the moon is made of cheese there is a fatal flaw in your silly assumption that craters weren't caused by mice. Of course the craters were caused by mice. A single colony of bacteria couldn't possibly create a single variety of cheese that large. It would have to be multiple varieties culturing varies varieties. Since bacteria grow in progressively sized sphere's (in an evenly prepared medium) then it can be just as easily assumed that the mice preferred the Gouda varieties and ate all of it up thus forming a void/crater which has spherical characteristics.
The point of the post which made you start this silliness is that the crap you have been spewing around here is equally ludicrous. Go away.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Aug 15 2009, 02:22 PM)
Originally posted by AlexG:
Let us start with the assumption that the moon is made of green cheese.
Could the visible cratering we see be do to the action of mice?
Since Mercury and a number of moons are heavily cratered too, there must be a lot of cheese about in the solar system. Maybe it is oxygen rich cheese, allowing the mice to exist in a near vacuum, and like fish they have adapted so they only need it at intervals?
Let us start with the assumption that the moon is made of green cheese.
Could the visible cratering we see be do to the action of mice?
Since Mercury and a number of moons are heavily cratered too, there must be a lot of cheese about in the solar system. Maybe it is oxygen rich cheese, allowing the mice to exist in a near vacuum, and like fish they have adapted so they only need it at intervals?
If the mice had been eating the cheese, where did their feces go? This would show up as large lumps, as large as the craters.
So unless they had a garbage service taking the waste way, I think the theory has a hole.
So unless they had a garbage service taking the waste way, I think the theory has a hole.
Cheese eating space mice have a 100% efficient metabolism. They don't poop.
100% efficient metabolism would imply they are completely converting the carbon compounds into carbon dioxide from oxygen. This carbon dioxide should show up in spectral analysis.
And, they would have required a source of oxygen. Unless all the oxygen vanished, there is still a problem.
And, they would have required a source of oxygen. Unless all the oxygen vanished, there is still a problem.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.